Community, participation and Web 2.0

 Tim O’Reilly (a media consultant) coined the term web 2.0 in 2003. “the widespread sense that there’s something qualitatively different about today’s web”

(New Media: A Critical Introduction, p. 204)

In the early days of the internet the web was used largely as a form of broadcasting known as brochureware. These type of sites display information without any user interaction, putting up adverts or information to be seen with no participation or personalisation with the user. The use of the internet in this way has since become known as web 1.0.

Web 2.0 is shifting the main creation of online content from producer to consumer, making sites interactive e.g. Facebook, Blogger.com and YouTube.

Unlike most media, e.g. newspapers (Producer -creating content for> Consumer) the internet has become co-creative (e.g. Consumer + Producer <-creating content for-> Producer + Consumer).

Essentially the line between Producer and Consumer is no longer clearly defined and instead in Web 2.0 everyone is simply a 'User'. The idea behind web 2.0 is users creating and sharing content with other users e.g. Wikipedia, livejournal and YouTube.

Sites like these rely heavily on the idea of 'snowballing' - Sites start off as small interesting communities but as more and more people become involved the sites start to grow to become huge sites with thousands of users both creating and viewing content.

Web 2.0 is a lot of people coming together to make something that is very big. Perhaps the best example of this is Facebook which is possibly the largest collective thing ever made by mankind with over 800 million users.

For five defining characteristics of web 2.0 check out this blog: http://rosie-digitalculture.blogspot.com/

Web 2.0 is also about "the importance of user ownership of data" (Dion 2006) the 'illusion' of power of control over the content you've created for example a facebook page.
We think of our profiles on Facebook as "my Facebook page" when in reality they are owned by facebook and can easily be shut down, altered or deleted without your consent. However we still retain a sense of ownership as its content we created about ourselves. MySpace actively pushed this idea of ownership even in their name. "My-Space" a space that is yours, that's created by you and that's about you. Essentially though the page belongs to Facebook or MySpace etc.

App Culture: Websites like the android market give people outside of the website or company the chance to create applications which enhance, improve or broaden the things possible within it.

Websites like Facebook and the android market have given way for an App Culture affording the opportunity for people outside of the website or company to create things which enhance, improve or broaden the things possible within it. This is an example of how the interaction between producer and consumer (found in web 2.0) has improved the way we use the internet, and is beneficial for the producers and other users.

Rather than having the elite producers i.e. highly talented, extremely rich etc. and everyone else being consumers, the two are now much closer together. This increases participation in the development of content and technology. The big companies tap into talent wherever it can be found, by slackening their control over their products, it means people usually considered consumers can create things. Rather than having a few people developing you can potentially have hundreds of thousands even millions of minds working on things to improve the content or technology already available. Also interacting with the consumers helps companies find out what it is their customers want and sometimes leads to customers creating it themselves and this despite consumers often not being considered experts but seemingly amateurs.
Therefore content is made both by experts and amateurs. It can be assumed that amateur content is a bad thing, as people often view 'amateur' as unprofessional. However the word is taken straight form the french word amateur which translates as "lover of", if someone does something purely for the love of it they perhaps approach it from a different point of view and are often incredibly committed to creating something great.

It is fair to conclude that Web 2.0 is about communication and interaction between people.

However Tim Berners-Lee the creator of the world wide web, believes there is no such thing as web 2.0.

“Web 1.0 was all about connecting people. It was an interactive space, and I think Web 2.0 is, of course, a piece of jargon, nobody even knows what it means. If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along.” 

 (Tim Berners-Lee 2006)

"This site, religionandtechnology.com aka “re: religion and technology,” is the research blog of Michael Paul Oman-Reagan."

This site is the research blog of Michael Paul Oman-Reagan.
He talks about the links between cyborgs, cyberspace and religion.

http://religionandtechnology.com/category/temple-of-cyborgism/

Cyborgism

What is Cyborgism?
"A cyborg is a being with both biological and artificial (e.g. electronic, mechanical or robotic) parts. The term was coined in 1960 when Manfred Clynes and Nathan S. Kline used it in an article about the advantages of self-regulating human-machine systems in outer space." Wikipedia.org

Often the subject for works of science fiction, cyborgism is seen by many as an extremely contentious issue.

Steve Mann (professor at the University of Toronto) describes cyborgism as "The incorporation of technological compnents that violate or transform the bodily/agential integrity of human beings" 

There is a school of thinking that cyborgism is wrong and that humans should remain natural and not artificial. The question then is what is natural, nearly everyone has modified themselves in one way or another, for example it can be argued that having pierecd ears is not natural. Scientific research and new technology have allowed for the treatment and cure of all manner of diseases that would have otherwise 'naturally' killed people. We've nearly all been vaccinated against diseases as children technically that means our risk of disease has been reduced artificially.
Is it really wrong then for human life to be 'artificial'?

Pacemakers are technology surgically inserted into a person's body to do a job that keeps the person alive, this is cyborgism. Imagine a loved one is dying, if there was anything you could do to keep them alive would you do it? I'm sure the vast majority of people would answer yes, maybe even if it goes against their core beliefs.
From this you could draw the conclusion that cyborgism in the form of a pacemaker is most definitely acceptable

Now say for instance a child is born with bradycardial arrhythmia his heartbeat is too slow and he cannot get enough blood to his body, he struggles his whole childhood with fatigue, shortness of breath and fainting. He's in and out of hospital and struggles to make friends, suppose as he gets older it becomes worse and his organs are at risk of failing. A pacemaker is fitted that saves his life, he then goes on to lead a very active lifestyle, trains hard, becomes a competent cyclist and dreams of racing in the Tour de France... But he can't because its deemed cheating to have a pacemaker, its not acceptable and he will never be permitted to race.
In this sense cyborgism is not acceptable seemingly under any terms.

Could you in all good conscience deny this person the chance of acheiving his dream? Is it morally right to say because you chose to have a pacemaker fitted (so that you didnt die) you can't compete?

Say he is allowed to compete, does this open the door to other cyclist paying to have pacemakers fitted as an attempt to gain an advantage? Essentially using technology as a way of upgrading or enhancing themselves. Is it then morally right to allow this?
What if technology advances and electric limbs begin to make their way into sports making athletes without them too inferior to qualify for events. The athletes with the most money or the best technology will have a distinct advantage and be likely to win everything. Young up and coming athletes will have to invest in technology, will be forced to become cyborgs to compete. The inspirational rags-to-riches stories of olympians or world champions born to poverty, yet against adversity rising to become the world's best, will be something of the past.

Will a day come when technological enhancements of the body will be something that can be paid for, in much the same way as cosmetic surgery is sold today?
Could there come a time when Cyborg technology is mass produced, a mobile phone implanted in the ear, or the internet available literally at the palm of your hand. These may seem like ridiculous or fantastical ideas now, works of science-fiction, but then that is exactly how a lot of the technology we have today was viewed in the past.
People with the money to afford this will become far superior to the people who cant. Today no matter how much money you do or dont have at the end of it all we are all the same, we're all just people. If no line is drawn on the potential of cyborgism it could be argued that this fundamental fact that underpins our society may no longer apply, we wont be all the same and who knows what the consequences of this could be!
 (Here's a link to a short debate about a similar subject of whether a procedure that could give humans wings would be ethical or not...
 http://www.debate.org/debates/cyborgism-genetic-modification-of-humans/1/) 
 
Clearly a line needs to be drawn, the controversial issue is where do we draw it?

It could be argued that if a procedure saved a persons life, i.e. if its available and absolutely necessary to keep the person alive (e.g. a pacemaker) then that is fine and therefore where the line should be drawn.
It could also be said however that the line should perhaps be pushed a little further, to say that if a technology will improve a persons quality of life then perhaps that should be acceptable. In the case of the pacemaker perhaps the person suffers symptoms such as fatigue and fainting but it is not life threatening, surely its still morally justified to allow the procedure. Or for example if a woman has lost her legs. If at some point in the future fully workable mechanical legs are available, it will not save her life but is it fair to deny her the opportunity to have back the ability to walk?

Below is a link to a blog post, talking of Professor Kevin Warwick's work controlling a robotic hand with his own nervous system, and of a moral dilemma that may occur if this technology could be applied to save a husbands life, and questions what happens then if the couple's relationship ends in divorce and the wife seeks something worth the value of the man's life as alimony because he owes his life to her.
http://loveforknowledge.blogspot.com/2008/02/cyberneticscyborgism-romantic.html 

In my opinion the line should be drawn at the point where cyborgism enhances human beings. Technology I feel should be used up to that point. If someone has lost a hand, giving them back a mechanical hand to restore them to the point before they lost it I feel is fair and ethical and if that technology is available it would be morally wrong to withold it. However I dont feel this sort of technology should be used to make humans better or set modified humans above or beyond non-cyborgs.

Is it possible to make technology with these limits? is it possible to regulate the technologies being created to ensure these limits? Will we ever face a time when it is essential to have this sort of technology available even if it is never intended to be used, in much the same way the U.S.A and other powerful nations have nuclear weapons?

All these questions and Im sure many others will continue to blur what is moral or ethical and determine whether or not the line, if ever drawn, should be crossed. I feel the issue of cyborgism will be a contentious one for a very long time; as time goes by and technology advances it will continue to throw up more questions than answers.

Check out the blogpost: http://multiplatformfirstyear.posterous.com/cyborgs-arent-just-sci-fi-anymore, It discusses a few real life cyborgs today!

What is news in the 21st Century?

News is defined, by Mitchell Stephens a professor of journalism at New York University, as:  “New information about a subject of some public interest that is shared with some portion of the public”.

 From this, the conclusion could be drawn that any information that is new and shared becomes news.
However this is under the condition that it is "about a subject of some public interest", so to be news, some portion of the public have to care about reading or hearing it. If your Nan's cat has eaten all its dinner, and the computer savvy old lady posts this new information to her blog about cats, is that news??
Possibly... If your blog-writing grandma has a healthy readership of like minded cat enthusiasts, then technically a portion of the public are interested in the subject. However it certainly isn't going to make front page news in the local paper.

So what makes a story front page news, how can you measure how newsworthy a story is or whether it is even news?
Media researchers Johan Galtung and Marie Holmboe Ruge analysed news stories from around the world and in 1965 published a list of 12 factors that where found in particularly newsworthy story's.

Canon Dr Owen Spencer-Thomas, MBE, describes the 12 news values Galtung and Ruge outlined under three sub headings: Impact, Audience Indentification and Pragmatics of Media Coverage:
 http://www.btinternet.com/~owenst/NewsValues.html

 

http://owenspencer-thomas.com/

The traditional view of news is that it is written by professionals and broadcasted to the public, for example an article in a newspaper written by a journalist, or a news programme on television.

In the 21st Century, technology allows us to receive news 24 hours a day, with TV channels such as BBC News 24, streaming live news as it happens, as well as frequently updated news online. In the 21st Century news isn't as heavily mediated or controlled by editors or producers. Galtung and Ruge suggested that frequency was a factor in newsworthy stories. They suggested that things that happen suddenly and infrequently make better  news stories as opposed to ongoing events. However with 24 hour news we are able to continuely be updated and follow an ongoing story, in this century ongoing stories unfolding as we hear about them is a staple part of how news is now reported.

This makes the chances of news being more innacurate with less time for reporters to check sources or qualify information. However with it being constantly streamed it can be corrected, updated and added to as more of the story is revealed.

On the internet anyone can publish information, if someone witnesses an event, for example the recent fire at a bar in Northampton, and posts a status on Facebook about it or uploads a picture, then they are sharing "with some portion of the public", "New information about a subject of some public interest". That person is not a professional or even claiming to be any sort of amateur journalist, however they have written and shared what is seemingly News.

Can un-professionally posted stories really be considered news? Are they reliable sources or is there even any way of telling they are reliable? 

On Social networking sites like twitter and Facebook, the things that are written can be tracked, people posting about the same subjects or stories be compared with eachother to put together a more clear and accurate picture of the story. Users can even actively work together in collaboration to qualify eachothers information and build up accurate stories to be posted. This is known as Citizen Journalism.

Citizen Journalism

This phenomenon is seen by some as a real threat to the news industries as it raises questions such as: What does the rise of citizen journalism mean for the future of professional journalism?; Will professional journalism become obselete?; Will we continue to read newspapers, as they'll only be reporting on events as recent as the day before?; will newspapers and daily news programmes only be reporting old news?; and ultimately what does this mean for the future of news?

As interesting and exciting as citizen journalism could be, personally I feel established, reputable sources of news such as the BBC will continue to thrive, when we want reliable information our first point of reference will be trusted news broadcasters, and I believe we will continue to qualify stories produced by groups of web users or amateur journalists by checking them against what the BBC or CNN etc. have got to say. Big news corporations can also hope to survive by embracing the potential citizen journalism has to offer. Reporting on trending subjects that appear on social networking sites, allowing comments to be made on articles online, and other forms of interaction between traditional producers and consumers of news, already occur. A continuation and growth of this interaction will continue to ensure Professional journalism and more traditional forms of news reporting will continue to be important.